Los Angeles Basin Contaminated Sediments Task Force

Summary of the Implementation Committee Meeting
February 1, 1999

bar4.gif (2919 bytes)

 

Attendees:

Jaime Kooser, California Coastal Commission
Catherine Tyrrell, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Lauma Jurkevics, California Coastal Commission
Bill Paznokas, California Department of Fish and Game
Ralph Appy, Port of Los Angeles
Michael Lyons, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Terri Ely, US Army Corps of Engineers/Regulatory
Tom Johnson, Port of Long Beach
Sara Wan, California Coastal Commission (partial meeting via telephone)

Dredging Roles - Draft Overall Permitting Flow Chart

We received narratives from NMFS and USFWS. Those narratives were provided to Implementation Subcommittee members at the January Task Force meeting (and by mail to those who weren’t able to attend that meeting). Since the two federal resource agencies provided formal comments, Lauma Jurkevics (CCC) sent out formal response letters thanking them for their participation in the process. Copies of the letters were provided to subcommittee members.

In addition, USFWS, CDFG, Heal the Bay and CCC provided comments on the flow charts and those comments were forwarded to Ralph. The narratives and comments were then discussed at the Implementation Subcommittee meeting. We had a productive discussion from committee members on the content and presentation of the flow chart, as well as on the regulatory processes involved. Ralph Appy (POLA) will revise the chart accordingly and provide members with an updated version shortly.

To better understand the planning and resource evaluation processes, we still need narratives, flow charts, and comments from Corps Planning and USEPA. Lauma has requested help from Russ Kaiser (Corps) and Steven John (USEPA). Per Terri Ely (Corps), Russ has now transferred to Corps Regulatory so Lauma has asked Russ whether he is going to continue with the Task Force. Meanwhile, Steven will be providing the requested information by February 4th.

Just a reminder, Lauma will need all information soon so she can summarize redundancies and recommend draft-streamlining options by March 15, 1999.

Strategy Adoption Process

The lead agencies will need to describe the process for adopting the management strategy once it’s developed. Terri has expanded her initial summary on the Corps’ processes. Copies of Terri’s most recent summary were given to subcommittee members at the January Task Force meeting (or by mail). We still need a summary from USEPA, CCC, and the LARWQCB.

Lauma provided a verbal summary of CCC permitting activities and identified Peter Douglas’ concerns about trying to determine how to adopt a strategy that has not yet been developed (i.e., having the cart before the horse). Peter had also emphasized the need to consider environmental protection. Lauma will be coordinating with Jaime Kooser (CCC) on developing a narrative on how the CCC has adopted other types of strategies involving non-point source issues. Stephen will be providing USEPA’s process by February 4th. Michael Lyons (LARWQCB) will then provide an analysis of the Strategy Adoption Process Requirements by February 15th based on the information he develops, as well as utilizing the other agency narratives (he may have to delay the analysis to incorporate all the narratives).

Meanwhile, Catherine Tyrrell (LARWQCB) recommended we consider an "Agency Review/Permitting Cycle of Service" to help facilitate future discussions on how to best adopt the management strategy. This type of analysis could help us visually see the path of least resistance whereby internal organizational and procedural changes might be implemented without having to undergo legislative or regulatory changes.

Interim Advisory Committee

In the process of discussing the dredging flow chart, there was concern on how the Interim Advisory Committee is functioning. The project permittee is the one who coordinates the meetings when Steven determines the project to be of concern. We need: (1) a follow-up on issues discussed; (2) a status report addressing the progress of resolving those issues. Currently, there seems to be a process occurring with the Corps’ Marina del Rey project but the parties involved aren’t always up-to-date on the progress. The Implementation Subcommittee recommended: (1) Steven be made aware of this concern; (2) the primary contacts and alternates be identified; (3) a dredge material coordinator be identified. Lauma will relay this information to Steven.

Funding

Role of Implementation Subcommittee

At the December Task Force meeting, the Executive Committee members concurred with Ralph that funding should be pursued through the Implementation Subcommittee. However, with the recent pursuits for state and federal funding, it was unclear how the subcommittee could best coordinate with its members when numerous ad hoc meetings are occurring. The members agreed we should continue with the draft state bill recently developed and pursue a similar federal funding strategy. Whenever an ad hoc meeting is to occur with specific members, Lauma will notify all members of this opportunity to get involved.

As for getting input from other subcommittees on potential projects, the members recommended we just notify the members of the other subcommittees. It was agreed that we could not wait for the other subcommittees to meet and discuss potential projects, especially when the Task Force deadline for identifying such projects is in June, while our current funding deadlines seem to be occurring now. We need to first concentrate on state and federal funding strategies and identify projects based on information previously discussed. We can identify other potential projects in later stages or let the subcommittees be responsible for pursuing their own funding options.

Status of State Bill

Sara Wan provided an update on the status of the state bill. The draft bill that was presented to the Task Force at the January meeting was given to Karnette’s staff. Karnette put in a spot bill for the Task Force but wanted us to also pursue the budget route. Sara investigated this option and could not support it because money dedicated to that route could be viewed as part of the CCC budget. Instead, we need to continue pursuing the legislative process. Alan Lowenthal has agreed to take over the bill and sponsor it. We also need to identify potential support from the Corps.

The tasks before us include:

getting the bill transferred to Lowenthal (Karnette’s office is willing to work with Lowenthal);
changing the bill’s language by clarifying its purpose (e.g., enabling the Task Force to implement the directives of the original bill and not asking for reauthorization – the original bill was to fund two staff people; now we need funding to implement the mandates of the bill);
developing findings by utilizing the draft Legislative Digest prepared earlier and identifying federal support, such as the Corps’ current feasibility studies (utilize AB 64 Public Beach Restoration Act – Ducheny as an example);
developing letters of support.

Tom Johnson (POLB) will be coordinating these tasks for the subcommittee with Gus Hein (POLB) and Dennis McCarbery (POLA). Tom will report back to Lauma so she can coordinate with the rest of the members. In addition, Sara indicated we would need a formal statement of federal support from the Corps and will continue to provide us with any updated information on the state bill. Ralph had mentioned Ruth Galanter’s interest and asked when would be the best time to involve her. It was recommended we first concentrate on completing the initial tasks before involving other people.

Federal Funding Strategy

Tony Risko (Corps) and Dean Smith (LA Co) attended a C-MANC (California Marine Affairs and Navigation Conference) meeting last week. According to Catherine, she heard something about $400,000 of funding that was mentioned at the C-MANC meeting. No one seemed to know much about this funding. Tom identified C-MANC as an industry-sponsored group involved in lobbying and promoting dredging and navigation issues. Members later followed up with Dean, who indicated that $400,000 was to be dedicated for a Reconnaissance Study for the Task Force (100% federal funding) and that C-MANC is composed of dredgers and consultants. Now that there is potential federal funding, he recommended we contact Kuykendahl and Steve Horn for federal support.

Members will pursue the federal funding strategy with the Corps and clarify this most recent funding opportunity identified at the C-MANC meeting. An ad hoc meeting will occur on February 8th, 9:30 a.m., at the LARWQCB’s office to discuss federal funding options, including opportunities under the Water Resources Development Act.

USEPA Grant Opportunities

Steven had previously provided us a copy of USEPA’s Draft Grant Opportunities manual. This manual was distributed to all subcommittee chairs. Although the grant opportunities might not be adequate for Task Force projects, no one has actually reviewed the information to confirm this. It was agreed that until we could discuss this issue with Steven, the Implementation Subcommittee would concentrate on other funding opportunities.

Assembly Bill 64 Ducheny – Public Beach Restoration

Members were provided copies of this bill. There seems to be opportunity to pursue funding through this bill. However, we won’t know until this bill is finalized and passed. Meanwhile, we could use it as a template for the state bill that we’re developing.

Next Implementation Subcommittee Meeting

CCC Long Beach office, March 3, 1999, 10:00 a.m. – noon.

There is also a prior ad hoc meeting to specifically discuss developing a federal funding strategy. This is scheduled for February 8, 1999, 9:30 a.m. (LARWQCB office).


bluebull.gif (1028 bytes) Return to the Contaminated Sediments Task Force Committee Meetings page.

bluebull.gif (1028 bytes) Return to the Contaminated Sediments Task Force home page.

bluebull.gif (1028 bytes) Return to the California Coastal Commission's home page.